What is your answer?

What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against abortion?

    If you're consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.
    [... missing premise ...]
    So if you're consistent, then you won't think that abortion is normally permissible.
    { 1 } - A fetus is human life.
    { 2 } - Human life has inherent worth.
    { 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against abortion?

    If you're consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.
    [... missing premise ...]
    So if you're consistent, then you won't think that abortion is normally permissible.

This premise won't get us to the conclusion.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is wrong. Please try again.

What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against abortion?

    If you're consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.
    [... missing premise ...]
    So if you're consistent, then you won't think that abortion is normally permissible.
    { 1 } - A fetus is human life.
    { 2 } - Human life has inherent worth.
    { 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.

This premise won't get us to the conclusion.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is correct!

What premise is missing in this GR consistency argument against abortion?

    If you're consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you'll consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.
    [... missing premise ...]
    So if you're consistent, then you won't think that abortion is normally permissible.
    { 1 } - A fetus is human life.
    { 2 } - Human life has inherent worth.
    { 3 } - You don't consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances.

With most people, this premise will be true. Most people won't consent to (or approve of) the idea of this act having been done to them. So insofar as most people take a consistent position, they won't think abortion is normally permissible.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end